Friday, November 11, 2005

How I totally fabricated a test

Earlier today myself and my friend, whom I shall refer to as Short-Round for humorous purposes, made plans to go see the movie "Capote" which has recently come out in theaters. However, the movie was only showing in a dinky little theater all the way across town and was going to be only showing once, which made our time considerably constrained. Being that Short-Round was the only one who had a car, I was pretty much stuck with him, and we decided that to just make things easier I would go to his last class with him and sit in the back and study while he and his professor and the rest of the class, did their thing.

What he neglected to tell me, however, was that that day was a test day. So there I was in a totally strange class room for a totally strange class being handed a test on Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws.

Suddenly, I was torn. I could either read the rest of Barry Unsworth’s Morality Play, the novel I was supposed to be reading, or I could amuse myself by fabricating erroneous and highly indecent answers to questions about government ideology, and then hand the test in to an innocent TA.

My course was clear. It was time to take out the bullshitting machine, and crank her up yet again.

My friend has supplied me with the two essay questions on the test, since they were given to the students several days ahead of time. I, of course, answered both, because I am flashy and cool and I just gots to let all the ladies know. All the answers I’m transcribing here are from memory, since what’s the point of fucking up a test and then not handing it in?

I took the test in my hands, licked my lips, and began writing and giggling feverishly, as though the muse herself (or more likely the muse’s sweetly retarded sister) took hold of me. I was so inspired in my writing that I’m surprised my eyes didn’t bleed, because that happens from time to time, especially if I’ve been drinking or punched about the eyes by large men.
Name: Fredric "Spanky" Turpington III
Date: Boobums
TA: The correct spelling is "TnA"

1. What are the distinctive principles and natures of Montesquieu’s historical governments – those being monarchical, despotic, and republican, both aristocratic and democratic?

To answer this question we must first look at Montesquieu’s history as he appears in Norse and Persian mythology. Montesquieu was the distant nephew of Yurtle "the Tertle" the Turtle, ancient destroyer of worlds and children’s toys, whose nefarious exploits are recorded in the two epics "Yertle the Tertle Murdles a Frankenfertle Hurtle," and "The Zodiac Killer: The Unstoppable Bloodlust of Yertle the Turtle." The spellings of "turtle" vary depending on whether or not you know how to spell the word turtle. In these long stories, sometimes reaching up to fourteen pages in length, Yurtle the Turtle is described as being the sworn enemy of both Fran Drescher, who laughs like a loon full of helium, and the greater metropolitan area of Chicago, which may or may not have something to do with loons. He is probably the most famous of turtles, except possibly for the one in the Tootsie Roll Pop commercial, which is actually a load of shit, because only a moron licks a candy that is clearly designed for sucking. A good way to see if someone is intelligent or not is to given them a Tootsie Roll Pop and see if they lick it. If they do, you are legally required (by the law) to murder them with a ball peen hammer, even if they’re in the tub or on the potty. This is the foundation for all civilization, which is probably something Montesquieu talks about or mentions in passing.

Montesquieu, having inherited these traits, went on to develop reason, which was unforeseen by scientists at the time, mostly cause they couldn’t figure shit out. Before reason, the way arguments were determined was by striking your opponent repeatedly about the head with a sharp or blunt object, and seeing if he bleeds or stops breathing. If he does, he is wrong, and may have to drink depending on if you are playing a drinking game. The preceding idea is stolen directly from a catoon tv show and I think it’s downright hilarious.

Reason can be observed by taking facts and then saying stuff about them. For instance, we shall take the example of my dog (for instance) whose name is Gus, who is small and shaped like a weiner, which is funny. I sometimes call him "EsophaGus" and "Augustus Caesar," or even "wigglefloppyponypup" if I have been up to some serious drinking. (for instance!) This is what reason is:

Fact 1: Gus is small.
Fact 2: He is a small dog.
Conclusion: There is no God.

Rousseau invented this and because of it I bet he got more ass than a warehouse full of toilet seats, or tampons, or even rapists, which is really saying something because I bet those rapists would be very upset for being pent up in a warehouse all day and would vent their anger through more rape. This is a bad thing unless you dress them up as clowns in which case it is also terrifying.

In conclusion, sometimes when I buy a bottle of poteen and sit around drinking it I usually wind up drawing pictures of turtles on my body with a knife using blood as ink. This makes serious sense to me. You can even use your nipples for the eyes of the turtles, and that way you can always see if someone is sneaking up on you from the front, which is pretty tricky, because you’d naturally be thinking they’d sneak up on you from the back. This is one of the foundations of society. Montesquieu.

2. What are the ways in which the spread of international commerce alters the character of international relations, specifically religion? Cite Montesquieu’s references.

The spread of international commerce is very much like the spread of other things, like peanut butter, but not the crunchy kind. When my brother was four he couldn’t eat anything with peanuts because he’d throw up all over the place and then I’d jump up and point at him and say SURVEY SAYS YOU’RE A FAG! This would make mom cry and she would lock herself in the car and we’d have to make dinner for ourselves (but not with peanut butter)

International commerce is done in the following ways.

1. Nation A sneaks knowing looks at Nation B from across the room. Nation B flutters her eyelashes, which are very pretty.
2. Nation A makes up lies about how cute Nation B’s shoes are, even if they’re stupid and ugly and she has the fashion taste of a syphilitic lobster ass.
4. Nation B says things like "I love you" which is fancy talk for "sex with you is okay and I like the stuff you own." Liking the stuff she owns is important, because eventually women, who already hate sex, will eventually begin to hate it more and more. This is because God hates you, personally. Her stuff will not get old and if it’s like all the David Bowie albums ever made then that’s pretty sweet.
5. Nation B is robbed and left for dead in a ditch
6. Nation C comes along and finds Nation B from her weak cries for help

Religions are okay with this so long as they get to wear funny hats. If they are not allowed to do this they will get very upset and you’ll be in trouble, even more than when I showed up at my church’s annual easter egg hunt and I told all the kids that Jesus had laid all those eggs himself. I have never seen fat women so irate. This did not help when in retaliation I began to loudly sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" but with liberal usage of the words "cuntshit" and "rat tits." This is a foundation of society.

My conclusion can be seen in this graph ([i]which I drew for no reason[/i]):
It can be seen here:

In conclusion, Montesquieu is hard to spell.